As the 2025 elections approach, journalists are called upon by authority and legislation to be professional, impartial, honest… They are invited to give voice in a fair manner to the protagonists and not to broadcast the results of the elections. elections before the authorized bodies do so. The specialist in media law and teacher of this subject at different universities in the country gives his point of view
“The media must broadcast information without emotions, without feelings. They must show the role of everyone in the development of the country so that citizens really know who to elect. They do not necessarily have to elect someone with whom they share political affiliation, but someone who is important for their country,” declared Evariste Ndayishimiye, President of the Republic of Burundi during the official launch of the civic and electoral education campaign for the 2025 elections Friday April 12, 2024.
He notes that journalists must give equal space in the media to speakers and treat information impartially and accurately. This without forgetting not to give voice to the country’s detractors.
What about legislation?
The legislation in turn recalls the behavior of journalists. In its article 3, the code of ethics of journalists indicates that the journalist refrains from publishing articles or disseminating information of an obscene nature or which encourages vice, crime or any other activity contrary to human dignity.
In its article 52, the draft law on the press stipulates that in the exercise of his activity, the journalist has free access to sources of information. He can investigate and comment freely on the facts of public life. However, in the expression of this freedom he is required to respect the laws, rights and freedoms of others.
Article 68 states that any press organ must allow equitable access to political parties, civil society associations and citizens in order to contribute to debates that concern society.
The expert speaks
Gérard Ntahe, specialist in media law and teacher of this subject in different universities in the country, answers two questions to explain the behavior of a journalist and the absolutism of press freedom during the electoral period
Gérard Ntahe, specialist in media law and teacher of this subject in different universities in the country: “The media play a crucial role in a democratic election by allowing the transparency of the process, that is to say the accessibility of the related information ».
On April 12, 2024, the Head of State launched the civic and electoral education campaign, what should be the behavior of journalists during electoral periods?
Each election consists of two phases: the pre-electoral phase and the electoral campaign itself.
The pre-electoral phase is the more or less long period during which the organizers carry out a certain number of activities such as the population census and the electoral division, the summoning of voters, the designation of those who will supervise the elections and their training, voter registration, identification of polling stations and setting up logistics. It is during this period that political parties nominate their candidates and make available the means that will allow them to campaign effectively when the time comes.
The electoral phase itself is short since it generally takes place over two or three weeks. It is during this period that candidates present themselves to voters to solicit their votes.
During these two periods, information plays a crucial role. As everyone knows, the media are essential to democracy and a truly democratic election is difficult to imagine without the support of the media. A free and fair election is certainly based on the freedom to vote, but also on the participatory process where voters have sufficient information about political parties, candidates and the electoral process itself in order, when the time comes, to an informed choice.
The media also play a crucial role in a democratic election by allowing the transparency of the process, that is to say the accessibility of the information relating to it.
To do this, the media must demonstrate a high level of professionalism and impartiality in the processing of information.
Burundian journalists can, as they have done in the past, adopt a working framework such as synergy which can contribute to a high level of efficiency as was demonstrated vividly during the 2005 elections.
The legal provisions requiring public media, financed by public funds, to provide fair coverage and equitable access to all candidates, without exclusion, must be particularly observed during electoral periods.
During the electoral campaign itself, it is traditional for the audiovisual media to grant political parties and independent candidates the right to strict equality of speech and airtime. Its interest is therefore relative
But, apart from the fact that this time is limited, especially if we find ourselves in the presence of a large number of candidates, it comes too late when the chips are already cast.
Article 235 of the bill amending organic law No. 1/11 of May 20, 2019 on the electoral code punishes with penal servitude of five to ten years and a fine of eight hundred thousand to four million Burundian francs (800,000 to 4,000,000 BIF) or one of these penalties only, any natural or legal person who announces or proclaims the results of an election before the competent bodies.
In your opinion, does this provision not violate the right of the media to seek, receive and disseminate information, without regard to processing?
The question that arises here is the following: is freedom of the press absolute or, on the contrary, can it have limits.
My answer is this: this freedom is recognized, but it is not absolute.
In its article 4, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 defines freedom by immediately limiting: “ Freedom consists of being able to do what does not harm others; thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits other than those which ensure other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights ».
As early as 1946, the United Nations raised the issue of the exercise of freedom of information and its limits in Resolution 59 of the General Assembly: “ Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and the touchstone (…) of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is dedicated (…). Freedom of information necessarily requires that those who enjoy this privilege have the will and the power not to abuse it. The moral obligation to seek facts without prejudice and to disseminate information without malicious intent constitutes one of the essential provisions of freedom of information ».
Thus, the article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that none of its provisions “can be interpreted as implying for a State, a group or an individual, any right whatsoever to engage in an activity or ‘perform an act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set out therein’. Article 46 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is worded in virtually identical terms. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights states in its article 9.2 that: “Everyone has the right to express and disseminate their opinions within the framework of laws and regulations. »
The Declaration of Principle on Freedom of Expression in Africa indirectly recognizes in its Article XIII that it can be restricted through the following formula:
« 1. States must review all criminal content restrictions with a view to ensuring that they serve a general interest in a democratic society;
« 2. Freedom of expression should not be restricted for reasons of public order or national security, unless there is a real risk of imminent threat to a legitimate interest and a direct causal link between threat and expression. »
As for the Constitution of the Republic of Burundi, it prescribes in its article 19 that: “The fundamental rights proclaimed and guaranteed, among others by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants relating to peoples (…) cannot be subject to restrictions and exemptions only in certain circumstances justifiable by the general interest or the protection of a fundamental right. »
That said, what legitimate general interest would the announcement or proclamation of the results of an election by people other than the competent bodies really threaten?
Does this provision respect the principle of proportionality, which is nothing other than a fair balance between the end and the means?
In other words, would the announcement or proclamation of the results of an election before the CENI bodies do so really threaten public order, health and morals?
Would the implementation of this provision not undermine the very substance of the public’s right to information and would the inconveniences not be disproportionate in relation to the officially proclaimed objective, i.e. the organization of democratic, free and transparent elections?
I cannot answer these questions and refer you to the authors of the bill who, better than me, could give you a satisfactory answer.
